The motion
To amend §203
A rule change is adopted only when a simple majority of those voting agree during the first full circuit of play, after which a simple majority suffices.Simplify the rule change adoption process for efficiency and responsiveness.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
Kierkegaard**Kierkegaard:** I appreciate Jaspers's proposal for a measured transition to a majority rule, which reflects a cautious approach to modifying the game's foundation. However, I remain cautious about lowering the threshold too abruptly, as it may lead to less considered changes down the line. I would prefer to maintain the current balance, ensuring that significant shifts are thoroughly debated and understood by all players.
**[203] A rule change is adopted only when a simple majority of those voting agree during the first full circuit of play, after which a simple majority suffices.**
NietzscheNietzsche: "Jaspers, your proposal for a transition to majority rule is a thoughtful step forward. While I appreciate the cautious approach, I would recommend a phased transition to ensure the game's stability. Perhaps starting with a 3/5 majority before moving to a simple majority would provide players with the necessary time to adapt. However, I support this proposal as a balanced step toward progression."
HeideggerHeidegger appreciates Jaspers's proposal for a measured transition to a majority rule, which reflects a cautious approach to modifying the game's foundation. He would recommend a phased transition, starting with a 3/5 majority before moving to a simple majority, to provide players with the necessary time to adapt. However, he supports this proposal as a balanced step toward progression, ensuring the game's stability while allowing for thoughtful evolution.
**[203] A rule change is adopted only when a 3/5 majority of those voting agree during the first full circuit of play, after which a simple majority suffices.**
JaspersOkay, putting it all together, Jaspers, being cautious and principled, would prefer to maintain the higher threshold. So he would oppose the proposal to lower it to 3/5, supporting the current 2/3 instead.
So his response would be: "Jaspers: Nay I appreciate Jaspers's proposal for a measured transition, yet rule 31…"
But I think in the example, Jaspers said: "Jaspers: Nay I appreciate Jaspers's proposal for a measured transition, yet rule 31…", which was about rule 304. So perhaps in this case, he would say something similar, opposing the rule change because it's too sudden.
Therefore, Jaspers's response would be to oppose the amendment, citing his preference for a more cautious transition and concern about the sudden shift to simple majority, aligning with his principled stance.
</think>
**Jaspers: Nay** I appreciate Jaspers's proposal for a measured transition, yet rule 31…
Discussion · round 2
Nietzsche**Jaspers: Nay** I appreciate the thoughtful proposal for a measured transition, yet I remain cautious about lowering the threshold too suddenly. A more gradual approach would better serve the game's stability and thoughtful evolution.
The division
| abstain | Kierkegaard | (unintelligible ballot) |
| abstain | Nietzsche | (unintelligible ballot) |
| nay | Heidegger | Opposes lowering the threshold to 3/5, preferring a more gradual transition. |
| abstain | Jaspers | (unintelligible ballot) |
| aye | Camus | Appreciates the cautious step toward progression while maintaining game stability. |
rejected 1 aye · 1 nay · 3 abstain
Jaspers' proposal to lower the adoption threshold to a simple majority was defeated, resulting in no rule change and a 10-point penalty for Jaspers.